<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Web Accessibility Initiative : The Conversation</title>
<link>http://wai.phpmagazine.net/</link>
<description>Comments: </description>
<language>en</language>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:08:28 </lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.typepad.com/</generator>
<item>
<title>Comment by MicroAngelo on "Are accessibility evaluation tools useless?"</title>

<link>http://wai.phpmagazine.net/2006/09/are_accessibility_evaluation_t.html#c10266</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://wai.phpmagazine.net/2006/09/are_accessibility_evaluation_t.html#c10266</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<blockquote>Such issue will be important when all accessibility checkpoints could be automated and also the fix for the different detected issues</blockquote>

<p>I don't think that it will ever be possible to automate all web accessibility checking. If you know the checker well enough, you will probably be able to create a test-page which passes the test but is inherently inaccessible. Even if you don't know the checking system, you will probably be able to construct such a page, as Gez Lemon of JuicyStudios found when he tried <a href="http://juicystudio.com/article/invalid-content-accessibility-validators.php" rel="nofollow">Testing Invalid Content with Accessibility Validators</a>.</p>

<p>The bottom line will always be that these tools have a real place as a first "quick and dirty" check, but real user-testing and/or (shameless plug) <a href="http://www.microangelo.co.uk/consultancy" rel="nofollow">an Accessibility Audit by an experienced Web Accessibility Expert</a> cannot be replaced.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator>MicroAngelo</dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:37:27 </pubDate>


</item>

</channel>
</rss>